Well not the entire car, just whatever Superman would have to hold onto while he lifts the car. Would all that pressure on an area the size of Superman's hands against what Superman is grabbing have the durability not to bend or break? I'm just saying, adhere too closely to the laws of physics, then Superman can't do much of anything except claim he's really strong.

I'd love to see a seen where Superman, who has zero problem lifting something the mass of a car, has trouble keeping it from falling apart in his hands. That just raises the stakes, and stakes = drama.

The idea of making it so advanced doesn't sit well with me. I'd think we'd see more than two survivors, planet wide, if that kind of technology was available. Yeah, yeah, no one believed Jor-El, but look how people chomp at the bit for every crazy end-of-the-world-nonsense-of-the-week we get here. There'd at least be like a thousand who jumped ship, or uh, planet.

Cryo baby FTW!

Ugh. I forgot where I am.

__________________

Quote:

"Great, now I have to take over a whole planet because of your stupid boobs."

Oh come on! I'm just having fun! I don't realistically expect the new flick to conform to how I'd approach it. I thought the point of a message board was to discuss these types of things. I think I had some interesting ideas (and for the record, I didn't even know I had them until I wrote them down just now). Can't we talk about these kinds of things without getting prickly about it?

Per my post in the costuming thread, I found this the most appropriate spot to continue our discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

Le sigh. That's right, my examples are not protagonists, but you haven't explained how the distinction affects the argument. Don't just pick at the examples; how about you address the actual argument?

I thought I did. I'll try again bellow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

But if you really want to play that game, fine: If you'd like another example, well, Superman. In All-Star Superman. Additionally, I haven't read Neil Gaiman's Sandman, but people seem pretty stoked about that protagonist, who happens to be an impossibly powerful mega-god who is the personification of an abstract.

Not familiar with it at all, can't comment (would like to read it though).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

I don't have any implicit understanding of what it's like to be an impossibly skilled mega-genius dressing like a bat, bouncing through time and fighting Gods and Godmachines; I don't relate to that. But I still understand the conflict, I'm still compelled by the conflict, and I still care about what happens to that protagonist.

This is a tired argument. Superman's struggles are bigger than me, and no, I don't relate to them--not literally. But I understand them. I understand the importance of a moral, intellectual, or societal struggle, even though I may never be faced with that dilemma. That compels me, the same way it compels me to see Batman struggle against his own reliance on violence, even though I have no comparison for such a conflict in my own life.

Being a compelling character is just not the same as being a compelling protagonist. There are a multitude of compelling and fantastic characters in comics that cannot carry a story on there own for the simple fact that they lack any capability to be relatable to the reader/audience, two examples of which being Joker and Galactus.
You claimed in an earlier post that not every character has to be relatable in order to be compelling....and then cited examples of superman dealing with conflicts that make him relatable.

The truth is.....I find myself very conflicted about the appropriate characterization of Superman sometimes. For an extremely long time I have felt that Superman should return to his status as the uncompromising hero of modern myth he was meant to be.
The problem is, I'm coming to believe that this will be the death of Superman as a leading character outside of comics.

So, you say,....just make his conflicts completely moral or cerebral. All the relatability and conflict you need, right? Well....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

Maybe he's straining because, though he is strong enough to lift an airliner, pure strength can't save those people. Physics is a *****. I always assumed that Superman's problem in that scene wasn't that he wasn't strong in enough, it was that he had to find a way to use his strength in a way that would save the plane and not kill everyone inside.

Which, incidentally, is more interesting to me than "Oh no, it's hard to lift this, so I will did down deep and... lift this."

You just outlined the problem though.
Digging down deep to find strength inside that you didn't know you had may very well be the most cliché story telling device in history...but it's cliché for a reason; it works and it's extremely dramatic. I'm sorry...but you just plain cannot beat a character struggling with every fiber of his being to will something to happen he's not even sure he's capable of; or at least certainly not with “ok take it easy...don't over-exert yourself, you'll split the thing in two if your not careful....nice and easy....just relax and keep er balanced....”

Maybe, just maybe, that might work on the comic book page where the character's internal monologue can give a deeper insight into his thought processes at a given moment (somes scenes from secret identity come to mind), but on film....it's a handicap that will make creating dramatic tension extremely difficult.

I'd love to see a seen where Superman, who has zero problem lifting something the mass of a car, has trouble keeping it from falling apart in his hands. That just raises the stakes, and stakes = drama.

Not familiar with it at all, can't comment (would like to read it though).

Which example? All-Star or Sandman? Because if you haven't read All-Star, then you really should. I think it should be required reading for discussion of Superman's power level.

Quote:

Being a compelling character is just not the same as being a compelling protagonist. There are a multitude of compelling and fantastic characters in comics that cannot carry a story on there own for the simple fact that they lack any capability to be relatable to the reader/audience, two examples of which being Joker and Galactus.

Yes, you already said that. Your argument, though, basically amounts to "This is the way it is," and you haven't provided any argument that convinces me my assessment is in error. As I already wrote, not every protagonist is supposed to be relatable, not every story is supposed to be relatable. Some ideas, some characters, and some stories are bigger than that.

As for the Joker and Galactus, I challenge your assertion that they cannot be effectual protagonists (though it may be true of the Joker; I question whether anyone can get behind a character with absolutely no redeeming qualities); they merely have not been used as such yet. Perhaps because there's no particular need (though personally, I would kill for a Galactus mini-series or graphic novel), or perhaps because no one is up to the challenge.

Quote:

You claimed in an earlier post that not every character has to be relatable in order to be compelling....and then cited examples of superman dealing with conflicts that make him relatable.

I'm not aware of citing any such example, unless you consider tackling moral decisions on the scale that Superman does as "relatable," which I do not. Having a hard time find a job is relatable, having marital troubles is relatable--deciding the fate of the world is not.

It's possible we're not talking about relatability on the same scale. For clarity, and as I've said before, I'm not suggesting Superman shouldn't have humanity or face conflicts we don't understand--but, again, Superman's humanity isn't the same as our,s because it's super. His problems are bigger than ours.

Quote:

The truth is.....I find myself very conflicted about the appropriate characterization of Superman sometimes. For an extremely long time I have felt that Superman should return to his status as the uncompromising hero of modern myth he was meant to be.
The problem is, I'm coming to believe that this will be the death of Superman as a leading character outside of comics.

Why?

Quote:

You just outlined the problem though.
Digging down deep to find strength inside that you didn't know you had may very well be the most cliché story telling device in history...but it's cliché for a reason; it works and it's extremely dramatic. I'm sorry...but you just plain cannot beat a character struggling with every fiber of his being to will something to happen he's not even sure he's capable of; or at least certainly not with “ok take it easy...don't over-exert yourself, you'll split the thing in two if your not careful....nice and easy....just relax and keep er balanced....”

I absolutely do not agree with this, and I think that's a defeatist attitude. Fortunately, there is a lot more to dramatic conflict then characters performing limitbreaks. That's not to say Superman should not be tested; but I will happily sacrifice a few "Oh no, is he strong enough--oh, I guess he is" moments if it means have more interesting struggles and storytelling.

Superman has always been the most interesting to me when treated as high concept, not another superhero trying to hit people harder than ever. Absolutely, there is a place for that in the genre, but that's not really what I'm reading Superman for. I'm more interested in seeing the guy who spends a thousand years building an artificial heart for the sun, who has to endure emotional hardships no mortal man could conceive, and deals with struggles on a scale we can only imagine.

I'd love to see a seen where Superman, who has zero problem lifting something the mass of a car, has trouble keeping it from falling apart in his hands. That just raises the stakes, and stakes = drama.

Yeah, I agree. Physics! Something a little fresher than just struggling to lift it.

Which example? All-Star or Sandman? Because if you haven't read All-Star, then you really should. I think it should be required reading for discussion of Superman's power level.

Yes, you already said that. Your argument, though, basically amounts to "This is the way it is," and you haven't provided any argument that convinces me my assessment is in error. As I already wrote, not every protagonist is supposed to be relatable, not every story is supposed to be relatable. Some ideas, some characters, and some stories are bigger than that.

As for the Joker and Galactus, I challenge your assertion that they cannot be effectual protagonists (though it may be true of the Joker; I question whether anyone can get behind a character with absolutely no redeeming qualities); they merely have not been used as such yet. Perhaps because there's no particular need (though personally, I would kill for a Galactus mini-series or graphic novel), or perhaps because no one is up to the challenge.

I'm not aware of citing any such example, unless you consider tackling moral decisions on the scale that Superman does as "relatable," which I do not. Having a hard time find a job is relatable, having marital troubles is relatable--deciding the fate of the world is not.

It's possible we're not talking about relatability on the same scale. For clarity, and as I've said before, I'm not suggesting Superman shouldn't have humanity or face conflicts we don't understand--but, again, Superman's humanity isn't the same as our,s because it's super. His problems are bigger than ours.

Why?

I absolutely do not agree with this, and I think that's a defeatist attitude. Fortunately, there is a lot more to dramatic conflict then characters performing limitbreaks. That's not to say Superman should not be tested; but I will happily sacrifice a few "Oh no, is he strong enough--oh, I guess he is" moments if it means have more interesting struggles and storytelling.

Superman has always been the most interesting to me when treated as high concept, not another superhero trying to hit people harder than ever. Absolutely, there is a place for that in the genre, but that's not really what I'm reading Superman for. I'm more interested in seeing the guy who spends a thousand years building an artificial heart for the sun, who has to endure emotional hardships no mortal man could conceive, and deals with struggles on a scale we can only imagine.

Agreed. Any hero, whether it be Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or any other hero, work best when he can understand their conflicts, but they need not always be relatable, or at least, not directly from personal experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

Yeah, I agree. Physics! Something a little fresher than just struggling to lift it.

Agreed. I think it would be interesting if Superman (and the other characters) were placed in a real world, with much more realistic physics to contend to.

Which example? All-Star or Sandman? Because if you haven't read All-Star, then you really should. I think it should be required reading for discussion of Superman's power level.

Sandman. I've read Allstar Superman....not all of it, but a fair amount.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

Yes, you already said that. Your argument, though, basically amounts to "This is the way it is," and you haven't provided any argument that convinces me my assessment is in error. As I already wrote, not every protagonist is supposed to be relatable, not every story is supposed to be relatable. Some ideas, some characters, and some stories are bigger than that.

As for the Joker and Galactus, I challenge your assertion that they cannot be effectual protagonists (though it may be true of the Joker; I question whether anyone can get behind a character with absolutely no redeeming qualities); they merely have not been used as such yet. Perhaps because there's no particular need (though personally, I would kill for a Galactus mini-series or graphic novel), or perhaps because no one is up to the challenge.

You say that not every protagonist and/or story is supposed to be relatable. Could you give me an example of a compelling story that did not have a protagonist or story that was at least attempting to be relatable in some way.
The only examples I can think of are certain videogames in which the main character is effectively designed to be little more than an avatar....but that's a storytelling convention that has more to do with the videogame medium then traditional storytelling.

The thing is, there was a Joker centric story released a year or so ago by Azzarello....but one of the things he recognized is that in order to remain true to the character of the joker whilst still providing a relatable perspective for the audience was to make the main character of the story one of the Joker's henchmen who winds up getting caught up in the Joker's madness. It was a choice that worked to GREAT effect.
My point is, can you make any character a protagonist....but the question is can you make them a compelling lead whilst still remaining true to their character?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

I'm not aware of citing any such example, unless you consider tackling moral decisions on the scale that Superman does as "relatable," which I do not. Having a hard time find a job is relatable, having marital troubles is relatable--deciding the fate of the world is not.

It's possible we're not talking about relatability on the same scale. For clarity, and as I've said before, I'm not suggesting Superman shouldn't have humanity or face conflicts we don't understand--but, again, Superman's humanity isn't the same as our,s because it's super. His problems are bigger than ours.

Perhaps we are not.
The ability to actually effect change on the moral decisions Superman deals with is something most people do not have...but the internal struggle of these ideas is absolutely something which makes Superman relatable. All of us try to reconcile existing moral dilemmas within ourselves.
How to treat prisoners of war, the growing level of inequality in the world, whether or not to intervene in third world conflicts are all things that people argue about both internally and externally even if they lack the ability to do anything about it ultimately.

Moreover, Superman does (depending on which version we're talking about of course) deal with conflicts on a more personal level that the audience absolutely can relate too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

Why?

A number of reasons, but part of it is just that the kinds of heroes our society has chosen to look up too have changed on a fundamental level. It's not even something specifically tied to superheroes....it's just the way things have gone.
The problem is...superman in classic form is still a perfectly compelling character....but I'm beginning to wonder if maybe he works better in this form as an ancillary or supporting character in a story....as a symbol of the perfect hero whom other heroes stand in relation too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

I absolutely do not agree with this, and I think that's a defeatist attitude. Fortunately, there is a lot more to dramatic conflict then characters performing limitbreaks. That's not to say Superman should not be tested; but I will happily sacrifice a few "Oh no, is he strong enough--oh, I guess he is" moments if it means have more interesting struggles and storytelling.

Superman has always been the most interesting to me when treated as high concept, not another superhero trying to hit people harder than ever. Absolutely, there is a place for that in the genre, but that's not really what I'm reading Superman for. I'm more interested in seeing the guy who spends a thousand years building an artificial heart for the sun, who has to endure emotional hardships no mortal man could conceive, and deals with struggles on a scale we can only imagine.

Yeah, that's all well and good and interesting as a dramatic take on Superman.....but how do you think that will play out in a summer crowd-pleaser?
I hate to boil it down to the lowest common denominator, and I'm not saying you can't have complex social and moral dilemmas as a backdrop for your story. The Dark Knight demonstrated that you don't have to dumb everything down for the audience. That being said....people are going to expect to see the Hero overcome physical adversity and triumph over the odds. This isn't just a staple of superhero films....it's a staple of films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAK®

The trouble is, comic writers and fans are under the impression that 'relatable' means 'flawed'.

It IS. A character without flaws, doubts, and imperfections is a being of absolutes with whom the audience has no ability to relate or connect with.

Define 'flawed'. Because there are a lot of characters that are capable of making mistakes and experiencing doubt that I still wouldn't call 'flawed'.

^there are varying levels of character flaws. In a protagonist, a major character flaw is usually something internal that prevents the character from ending the conflict in the story....like doubting they have the strength to win, or fearing that which they must face.
Minor character flaws can be things as small as, say, a fear of heights.

I still don't see how people think "relatable" means "flawed". Or in the case of Superman "flawed" and "depowered". Unfortunately, I have never had the chance to read Sandman, but I have read Lucifer, which is very similar, and I'll come back to that later.

But in the case of Superman, being flawed does not equal being relatable. Firstly, if you have All-Star Superman, read it in it's entirety. Secondly, the Superman in that book is nigh omnipotent and still has everything about him that makes the classic Superman. But ultimately it is the story of a man who wants to do as much good as he can before he dies. Everyone wants to do that, that is why that story in particular is so relatable. And that is why Superman should he written like that in future, because at heart of the tale, and the essence of the character, it's about trying to better yourself and trying to do as much good as possible.

Anyway, back to Lucifer. Possibly the best story I have ever read. And the best part of it, it has an omnipotent (by the ending), perfect protagonist. God made him that way. Being 75 issues long, it is rather hard to go into any great detail, but just like Superman the heart of the story is something we all relate to. Lucifer wants to know that he creates his own future, and by the end, he succeeds, so to say characters are too powerful or too perfect to work, is ignorant and wrong.

Dying is the obstacle that he needs to 'overcome' but it's not part of his personality. The point is that Superman in that story is relatable without being flawed.

Yes it is, and yes he is. Of course it's a part of his personality, because many of the things he does in the story are motivated by the idea that he doesn't think he has a lot of time left. It's a character trait, and yes, it's a character flaw.

Yes it is, and yes he is. Of course it's a part of his personality, because many of the things he does in the story are motivated by the idea that he doesn't think he has a lot of time left. It's a character trait, and yes, it's a character flaw.

It effects his personality because he is motivated by it, but it isn't a flaw on his part.

But let's say that what you think counts as a flaw is correct. Why would you be disagreeing with us? Do you think we're suggesting a Superman story with no conflict or motivation?

It effects his personality because he is motivated by it, but it isn't a flaw on his part.

It doesn't matter whether he's responsible for his flaw, it's a flaw he must deal with. As another example, a character who is born with a mental disorder is not responsible for their condition...but it is still a character flaw they may struggle to overcome in the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAK®

But let's say that what you think counts as a flaw is correct. Why would you be disagreeing with us? Do you think we're suggesting a Superman story with no conflict or motivation?

Well...not exactly. I don't think there's any argument over the need of conflict in the story certainly....the issue is more the kind of conflict and how Superman responds too it, and in turn how the audience responds to Superman.

I'm concerned about the idea of a Superman who has no difficulty with physical adversity whatsoever because I find it to be lacking a cinematic sensibility and dramatic tension. I'm also concerned about the idea of a Superman who lacks anything that will allow viewers to connect on a basic emotional level beyond......well....he's the hero.

Sandman. I've read Allstar Superman....not all of it, but a fair amount.

How could anyone not finish All-Star Superman? The ending is the best part.

Quote:

You say that not every protagonist and/or story is supposed to be relatable. Could you give me an example of a compelling story that did not have a protagonist or story that was at least attempting to be relatable in some way.

I'm going to direct you to my previous comments clarifying the scale upon which I am discussing relatability. I'm not talking about characters completely devoid of humanity or understandable struggles.

Quote:

The thing is, there was a Joker centric story released a year or so ago by Azzarello....but one of the things he recognized is that in order to remain true to the character of the joker whilst still providing a relatable perspective for the audience was to make the main character of the story one of the Joker's henchmen who winds up getting caught up in the Joker's madness. It was a choice that worked to GREAT effect.

I already discussed my position on the Joker and why I don't think he'd make a strong protagonist--and I didn't care for "Joker," though that was for different reasons.

Quote:

My point is, can you make any character a protagonist....but the question is can you make them a compelling lead whilst still remaining true to their character?

Yes, I know what your point is, because you've repeated it several times. That is the argument I've been addressing.

Quote:

Perhaps we are not.
The ability to actually effect change on the moral decisions Superman deals with is something most people do not have...but the internal struggle of these ideas is absolutely something which makes Superman relatable. All of us try to reconcile existing moral dilemmas within ourselves.
How to treat prisoners of war, the growing level of inequality in the world, whether or not to intervene in third world conflicts are all things that people argue about both internally and externally even if they lack the ability to do anything about it ultimately.

Er, yeah. That was sort of my point. As I wrote; Superman deals with conflicts we understand, conflicts we may contemplate, but not conflicts we relate to or have experience with. This is what I'm talking about when I say he works best as high concept. We're using him to tackle issues that are aren't really a part of our lives.

Quote:

Moreover, Superman does (depending on which version we're talking about of course) deal with conflicts on a more personal level that the audience absolutely can relate too.

Yes; as I explained earlier, I'm not talking about absolutes and making Superman completely alien. I'm painting with a broad stroke and arguing the principle of the matter, because that's what we're discussing.

Quote:

Yeah, that's all well and good and interesting as a dramatic take on Superman.....but how do you think that will play out in a summer crowd-pleaser?

Somehow I doubt the audience is going to walk out and tell their friends not to watch the movie because Superman didn't strain hard enough when performing his incredible feats.

Quote:

I hate to boil it down to the lowest common denominator, and I'm not saying you can't have complex social and moral dilemmas as a backdrop for your story. The Dark Knight demonstrated that you don't have to dumb everything down for the audience. That being said....people are going to expect to see the Hero overcome physical adversity and triumph over the odds. This isn't just a staple of superhero films....it's a staple of films.

Was Batman overcoming physical adversity actually a part of the Dark Knight? Because if you ask me, it wasn't. Batman is more or less unstoppable in that film. He dismantles everyone he touches, almost effortlessly. Yes, he takes some good hits (especially towards the end) and we see the wear on him, but that's not what that movie is about, that's not what anybody went home talking about. There was never a moment where Batman "overcame physical adversity" for dramatic purposes. It was all about the moral conflict, the psychological conflict, and his will to endure those challenges. Not the physical challenges.

Really, The Dark Knight is a great example, because Batman seems about as powerful as he could possible be. He even had his Grant Morrison Bat-God moment when he busted out his secret sonar Joker detector.

How could anyone not finish All-Star Superman? The ending is the best part.

My funds are really limited and I'm one of those kind of guys who can't just read ONE thing and enjoy it....I wind up getting sucked into everything that's out at the time and it bleeds me dry. Every once in a while I'll jump back in...but then I see my bank account and realize I have to stop. All Star Superman is definitely on my list to pick up in the trades, but there's a lot of other stuff I'm interested in right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

I'm going to direct you to my previous comments clarifying the scale upon which I am discussing relatability. I'm not talking about characters completely devoid of humanity or understandable struggles.
Yes, I know what your point is, because you've repeated it several times. That is the argument I've been addressing.
Er, yeah. That was sort of my point. As I wrote; Superman deals with conflicts we understand, conflicts we may contemplate, but not conflicts we relate to or have experience with. This is what I'm talking about when I say he works best as high concept. We're using him to tackle issues that are aren't really a part of our lives.
Yes; as I explained earlier, I'm not talking about absolutes and making Superman completely alien. I'm painting with a broad stroke and arguing the principle of the matter, because that's what we're discussing.

You know it's sounding like we don't even disagree on the substance of the argument really....but why if you feel this way are you saying Superman and other character's are not supposed to be “relatable” when, I'm sorry, but you clearly do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

Somehow I doubt the audience is going to walk out and tell their friends not to watch the movie because Superman didn't strain hard enough when performing his incredible feats.

I contest this. In all likelyhood, no, they will not be able to cite specifically what it is about the action sequences they found dissapointing....but I stand by my assessment that the kind of sequences you describe will be dramatically underwhelming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint

Was Batman overcoming physical adversity actually a part of the Dark Knight? Because if you ask me, it wasn't. Batman is more or less unstoppable in that film. He dismantles everyone he touches, almost effortlessly. Yes, he takes some good hits (especially towards the end) and we see the wear on him, but that's not what that movie is about, that's not what anybody went home talking about. There was never a moment where Batman "overcame physical adversity" for dramatic purposes. It was all about the moral conflict, the psychological conflict, and his will to endure those challenges. Not the physical challenges.

The moral conflict is the backdrop, but absolutely the physical adversity is the centerpiece. Bale's Batman is an awesome unrelenting force in that film....but he is far from invincible as you pointed out. Even in the very last part, where up till then there really wasn't any real logical reason for why it would happen, the Joker managed to get a few good licks in and even had Batman on the ropes for a minute.
Why? Because it made for a better story. You needed Batman down and out while the Joker prepared to revel in his victory over Batman and over the spirit of Gotham....right before good triumphed and Batman rose up and finished the fight.
And even before then there are many parts in the film where, while certainly not on the ropes, he's clearly exerting himself a lot more than you're suggesting.

You know it's sounding like we don't even disagree on the substance of the argument really....but why if you feel this way are you saying Superman and other character's are not supposed to be “relatable” when, I'm sorry, but you clearly do?

Like most things, it's a matter of degrees. Spider-Man is what I'd describe as a relatable character, and Superman is not--but that's not to say he's a completely alien, unknowable character. Though the difference between them is one of degrees (not one of black and white), it remains an important one.

It's a scale, and Superman, in the interpretation I feel is ideal, possesses a power and moral integrity that inevitably places him on the opposite side of the scale--and that works for him, when written by individuals who have the talent and imagination to conceive of conflicts on such a scale.

Quote:

The moral conflict is the backdrop, but absolutely the physical adversity is the centerpiece.

I could not disagree more; I believe the exact opposite is true. It was never a question of whether he'd hit people hard enough or fast enough; it was always a question of whether or not he could endure the non-physical hardships.

Quote:

Bale's Batman is an awesome unrelenting force in that film....but he is far from invincible as you pointed out. Even in the very last part, where up till then there really wasn't any real logical reason for why it would happen, the Joker managed to get a few good licks in and even had Batman on the ropes for a minute.
Why? Because it made for a better story. You needed Batman down and out while the Joker prepared to revel in his victory over Batman and over the spirit of Gotham....right before good triumphed and Batman rose up and finished the fight.

He didn't so much "rise up" as he pushed a button on his gauntlet. Again, I maintain that Batman overcoming physical limitations was never the focus of any of the film's drama.

Actually, I retract that; when he managed to stop Dent after being shot, it was important there. So, one point.

Quote:

And even before then there are many parts in the film where, while certainly not on the ropes, he's clearly exerting himself a lot more than you're suggesting.

Such as where? He blows through the Chechen's goons, he blows through Lau's goons, he blows through Joker's goons, he blows through Maroni's goons, and he blows through the SWAT team. The only two characters who actually manage to hurt Batman (unless we're counting dogs, which he shrugs off anyways) are Joker and the Two-Face, and I would argue it's for thematic purposes, reflecting the the moral and psychological threats they represent.

Batman is at the top of his game in The Dark Knight. We'll be seeing a spent Bruce in Rises by the looks of it. And even if Superman is uberpowerful, look at the villains, uberpowerful, just like him.

And the moral conflict is the plot of The Dark Knight. It's in the central plot of Dent's fall, "how far would you go for a loved one?" and Batman's in "how far would you go to stop someone? And how much would you be willing to sacrifice for your loved one?". Not, "Batman elbows the crap out of thugs".